PS: the so-called "Right wingers" today -- as a whole -- are not BLAMING Obama for gas prices. They are simply calling out the insane hypocrisy of Obama and Pelosi and others who DID openly and repeatedly blame Bush for the same things, yet refuse to address the realities of the situation today. They're basically saying, "Whoa now! You blamed Bush when prices were high, where's your same sense of responsibility now?"

You guys are buying the media bullshit that people are actually blaming Obama. Find new sources of news, guys ... it's way too obvious that you're feeding at the pig trough of the media outlets owned by Soros and the gang.

To a larger extent, speculators are running oil prices due to the political realities and unrest in the middle east. The retardo Agenda 21 types in our government are a bunch of pansy-asses who refuse to allow us to drill for oil when we have a INSANE amount of oil & gas reserves underground. To a lesser extent, they're running up things like oil and gold up as high as they are because they DON'T see light at the end of the tunnel of this whole tsunami of anti-American manipulation within our body politic.

An example of what I'm talking about is Obama's (and the Administration's) constant and repeated lie that we simply do not have significant enough reserves to become energy independent. These fuckers would rather send money and aid to countries in south America to expand their drilling rather than do it ourselves. Yet NOBODY in the media is even checking Obama on these constant and overt lies. If it comes out of his mouth, it must be gold!

Sad, really ... very, very sad.

OHHHHHHHHHH ... and as for "Bush's failed fiscal policies" that people like Schulz-Wasserman, Pelosi, Obama, et al keep blathering away about ... it is TERRIFYING to me that it is the same politicians doing the blaming who were actually the ones who were in control of both Congress & Senate ... terrifying that they were the ones who opened the doors for banks to enter the investment industry (by way of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which was meant to KEEP banks out of the investment banking and intensely speculative markets) ... terrifying that that it is the SAME PEOPLE who pushed the "Community Reinvestment" act, who bullied and threatened banks into making loans to unfit potential home buyers (with direct threats of "discriminatory lending practices") ... and terrifying that it is the SAME PLAYERS who vehemently defended Freddie Man and Fannie Mae when they were spiraling out of control.

It's all just one big scam to get our system completely and totally overwhelmed and usher in this whole fucked up "New World Order" bullshit. My comment above was NOT intended to defend Bush. I find that family guilty of of being party to this whole god damned scam. I'm just taking a moment to call that vile, disgusting piles of excrement/lies by its real name: it's all SHIT, and many of you have been duped into believing a lie. A LOT of lies, actually.

"Tommy .. you're growing on me, sir. You have now been upgraded to Manta Ray status. Yes, I believe that suits you just fine." Sonny 05/22/12

"Putty opened up a home for wayward anglers" -- BillyMac 09/16/11

"u r not loowed to tqak bout NIV since u stayed homo so only speaks to what us no about...md calle in morning i sne tu pm" BillyMac 10/16/11

Tom Putty wrote: as for "Bush's failed fiscal policies" that people like Schulz-Wasserman, Pelosi, Obama, et al keep blathering away about ... it is TERRIFYING to me that it is the same politicians doing the blaming who were actually the ones who were in control of both Congress & Senate ... terrifying that they were the ones who opened the doors for banks to enter the investment industry (by way of repealing the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 which was meant to KEEP banks out of the investment banking and intensely speculative markets)

"The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001).

It repealed the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001."

I agree with you in general that the politician's shovel similar bullshit*, but it does smell a little different. That act did lay the groundwork for the financial collapse, but it was 100% elephant poo. Clinton deferred to the GOP who controlled the Senate and The House. The GOP knows big business.

*But maybe not all the politicians all the time. Check out this quote I came across from NostraDingell, (D) Michigan at the time.

"During debate in the House of Representatives, Rep. John Dingell (Democrat of Michigan) argued that the bill would result in banks becoming "too big to fail." Dingell further argued that this would necessarily result in a bailout by the Federal Government."

Y'all take off your partisan hats and give this Dingell fella a listen for 2 minutes. No big idealogical debate here, it's just pretty incredible what this dude predicted:

I pay too much attention Tom. It's some kind of hat allows you to call them all bullshit, yet makes you attribute an act of Congress called Gramm-Leach-Billey, to Nancy Pelosi and Dems. It's feeding from the same pigsty you lament at length.

I did think that Dingell clip was pretty interesting, dude spelled it out pretty close how it went down, and using the exact line, "too big to fail", that's pretty good stuff.

"The Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act (GLB), also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, is an act of the 106th United States Congress (1999–2001).

It repealed the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933, removing barriers in the market among banking companies, securities companies and insurance companies that prohibited any one institution from acting as any combination of an investment bank, a commercial bank, and an insurance company.

Respective versions of the legislation were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Virginia), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001."

I agree with you in general that the politician's shovel similar bullshit*, but it does smell a little different. That act did lay the groundwork for the financial collapse, but it was 100% elephant poo. Clinton deferred to the GOP who controlled the Senate and The House. The GOP knows big business.

fensters down wrote:I pay too much attention Tom. It's some kind of hat allows you to call them all bullshit, yet makes you attribute an act of Congress called Gramm-Leach-Billey, to Nancy Pelosi and Dems. It's feeding from the same pigsty you lament at length.

I did think that Dingell clip was pretty interesting, dude spelled it out pretty close how it went down, and using the exact line, "too big to fail", that's pretty good stuff.

Gramm, Leach and Billey were part of the communist plot to take down America. Stop obfuscating the issue and take off your blinders. That kind of "reading" and "comprehension" are part of the problem.

Kaif01 wrote:Gramm, Leach and Billey were part of the communist plot to take down America. Stop obfuscating the issue and take off your blinders. That kind of "reading" and "comprehension" are part of the problem.

Just givin' proper credit to their role in the destruction of America and The New World Order.

Tom Putty wrote:PS: the so-called "Right wingers" today -- as a whole -- are not BLAMING Obama for gas prices. They are simply calling out the insane hypocrisy of Obama and Pelosi and others who DID openly and repeatedly blame Bush for the same things, yet refuse to address the realities of the situation today. They're basically saying, "Whoa now! You blamed Bush when prices were high, where's your same sense of responsibility now?"

You guys are buying the media bullshit that people are actually blaming Obama. Find new sources of news, guys ... it's way too obvious that you're feeding at the pig trough of the media outlets owned by Soros and the gang.

The "media bullshit" is developed and distributed by Republican Marketing.

Today even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for
oil for this country. He signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of
our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is
the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the
coast of Brazil. The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole
purpose and use of China and not the USA. The Chinese government is
under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce,
which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil".

FULL ANSWER

This claim stems from a "preliminary committment" made back on April 14
by the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank of the United
States. The bank intends to loan up to $2 billion to finance exports to
the Brazilian oil company Petróleo Brasileiro S.A., known as Petrobras,
over the next several years.

The e-mail is false on two counts.

The message falsely says the decision was due to an "executive
order" by the president. No presidential order was required.
Furthermore, none of President Obama’s appointees had joined the Ex-Im board at
the time of the vote, which was unanimous, and bipartisan. The Ex-Im
Bank states: "In fact, at the time the Bank’s Board consisted of three
Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W.
Bush."

THE ABOVE IS FROM FACT CHECK.ORG. Snopes has something very similar to it. Yet Mr. Putty tells us this....................

"An example of what I'm talking about is Obama's (and the
Administration's) constant and repeated lie that we simply do not have
significant enough reserves to become energy independent. These fuckers
would rather send money and aid to countries in south America to expand
their drilling rather than do it ourselves.!"

Thom...maybe it is YOU who needs to do more research. Or do you consider FactCheck and Snopes to be commie?

D'uhhhh ... just follow the money, Don. BOTH organizations have been found lacking on more than one occasion, and -- more to the point -- they're fucking WEB SITES! Is Wikipedia your go-to source on all things too?

I'm being a smart ass ... obvs.

FactCheck.org is almost fully funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Yes, Mr. Annenberg was a devout "Reaganite", his heirs are FAR from it. With all of their ties to William Ayers and Chicago corruption ... well, you guys seem to find that perfectly acceptable; otherwise you'd be condemning it instead of playing more word games. Rather than focusing on what is true, all you fuckers seem to do is play this retarded game of pointing the finger and saying, "But look at what *they* did!!!!"

Shocking revelation: you were supposed to grow out of that during puberty, guys.

And when are you fuckers going to wake the fuck up and realize I'm every bit as anti-Republican as I am anti-Democrat??? Our country is being taken over and all fuckers do is throw mud, deflect, and play semantics.

PEACE OFF!

"Tommy .. you're growing on me, sir. You have now been upgraded to Manta Ray status. Yes, I believe that suits you just fine." Sonny 05/22/12

"Putty opened up a home for wayward anglers" -- BillyMac 09/16/11

"u r not loowed to tqak bout NIV since u stayed homo so only speaks to what us no about...md calle in morning i sne tu pm" BillyMac 10/16/11

Scott, I assume that your math comment was directed toward me. I know math. You are using it to reinforce your beliefs and I am not.

What it says is over the course of ten years there are three less workers out of each 100. Does it say anything about involuntary unemployment? I'll bet it was in the 50's or lower in the 50s to 60s due to the fact that the majority of wives did not work. Maybe more today are making that same choice. That could be for good reasons (spouse makes more) or it could be for bad (low wages don't cover the cost of child care and transpoation).